Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

I believe you are pushing a false dichotomy by using your check to the exclusion of possible examples. What about the situation where your boss elects to reward you for something particularly innovative that you have done at work? The law attributes the benefit of most such inventions to the employer, and you have already been paid. So in what category would be the plaque and money that your boss gives you?Regardless of the ease or difficulty of obtaining salvation, under the doctrines of Christianity, salvation is not earned. In that respect it is nothing like your pay check regardless of the fact that it is not given to you with the same lack of discrimination with which your parents fed you as an infant.In short, the word 'gift' is surely not dispositive of the issue. The words 'free gift' are added for the purpose of resolving that issue and thus the source of the words are important.I attended a church in VA which taught the doctrine that there was a reward for your works that was something different from salvation. Salvation was strictly by grace and through faith, nothing else needed except repentance and accepting Christ as your Savior. I think such doctrines are an attempt to take into account everything Jesus, Paul, and James said on the matter, but I'm not convinced that such doctrines are correct.But More importantly, I'm convinced that the distinction is not of much import, at least between those who are consider themselves brothers/sisters with Christ. A Protestant who feels superior to a Catholic or Jehovah's Witness because he see those 'pseudo Christians' working in a soup kitchen or going door to door trying to win souls for Christ has surely missed some scripture. The Protestant ought to be about his own works. Ringo is surely right about that.

Those "exclusionary terms" come straight out of the Reformation, and most Reformed believers do not consider themselves "fundamentalists." Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, those are Reformation Protestant concepts, not "fundamentalist" concepts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Even if that statement was completely true, those people would still hold that salvation still comes from Christ with no path to salvation excluding Christ being remotely possible. That such is not true is the lie we keep hearing from you.And then both you and those pseudo Christians would agree that after you accept Christ, the question of whether or not you actually have the faith you profess will show up in your works. Both a Catholic priest and a Protestant pastor would implore you to get off of your couch and pitch in.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is a position called "cheap grace" which is decried by a large swath of Protestantism as overemphasizing salvation by grace in a way that is even permissive about sin.We still have to emphasize that salvation is a free gift because as discussions like this show it is easily confused and lost. Ringo for instance. And most of what Archer has said although now he's taking a different tack.Justification is a free gift, and growth in the faith is also through Christ but that is where we have to work, having to actively mortify sin and the flesh, actively put aside the lusts of the flesh, actively take thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ, actively live by His teachings, actively pursue whatever calling is on our lives. The work we do in these ways builds on our free salvation.

You have expressed that even when faith is present it is next to nothing. So no I don't think I need to rethink what I've said.

I went the opposite direction. I'd never been in a KJV-only church, everybody I knew had one or another of the modern translations, the NASB being the most recommended. It was only after I started reading up on the history of the changes from the KJV to the modern translations, all based on a few Greek manuscripts that came to prominence in the 19th century, one in particular, Codex Sinaiticus, discovered in the mid-19th century, that I began to smell a rat. This particular manuscript cast doubt on the tradition behind the KJV, the Greek manuscripts collectively known as the Textus Receptus . Sinaiticus is now regarded as the oldest and therefore the most authentic text and on the basis of its readings, which leave out a lot of familiar passages, the KJV has been criticized as having added material that wasn't in the original, and most churches today accept this view of things although it brings the Bible itself into doubt.After reading the book The Revision Revised by Dean John William Burgon, a contemporary of the committee that revised the KJV based on those "new" manuscripts, I switched to the KJV because of his very convincing arguments that the "new" manuscripts are corrupt.I'm not a "KJV-only" of the sort that thinks that particular translation was somehow directly inspired by God, but I'm functionally KJV-only in that I know it's the only version that has not been altered by the corrupted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts. The New King James is supposed to be based on the KJV texts too, but it has been corrupted in other ways.This is a huge topic and I have a blog on it I started some years ago I call "The Great Bible Hoax of 1881." I believe it is just one of the ways that the Church has been deceived as we approach the end days.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Do you understand the difference between "nothing" and "next to nothing"? If your dog is sitting next to you, does that mean your dog is you?

I think this misrepresents the issues involved. "Feeling superior" has nothing to do with Protestant objections to Catholic or JW doctrine. JWs aren't Christians in any sense at all because they deny the Deity of Christ, impute angelic status to him. Jesus Himself said that if we do not believe that He is God we will die in our sins. It is important to steer people away from a doctrine that will lead them to Hell, this has nothing to do with "feeling superior." And as for Catholicism the evidence is clear that most Catholics are not trusting in Christ but in their Church or other extraneous things, and also need to be warned that they are on the wrong path, again nothing to do with "feeling superior" but in fact sincerely wishing to save people.Working in a soup kitchen, contributing to charities and doing other good works is a really good thing to do of course. Most churches have ministries of good works and most Christians serve in them. But if it's all being done by people who aren't saved they are sadly deceived and need to be shown the way to salvation.

Have you read the anathemas of Trent? I'll go find them and post them if necessary.Catholicism does NOT support the idea of salvation by faith alone at all, it is always Faith Plus Works, not Works following Faith but Faith AND Works together. Which I've affirmed all along, you have no cause to call me a liar. Not at my age in my physical condition they wouldn't, and you have no idea what I used to do when I was able to do it. My works now are pretty much confined to the internet, thankless task though it is. And prayer. That's something one can always do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Aren't you the same guy who complains about inferring absolutes when he has not insisted he is talking absolutely.I'm not sure how I earned the condescension in your post, but if it is not clear from what I have said already, both the idea that faith is 'nothing' and that faith is 'next to nothing' are wrong. There is no distinction between the two ideas that is Biblical or in accordance with what Christ teaches or what Paul states he learned from Christ. The Gospels include examples of Jesus telling people they are healed through faith or have exhibited faith without any evidence of works. Both the story of the woman with the issue of blood and the story of the man who climbed a tree to get a better view of Jesus are examples of such.

Post whatever you think helps prove your point. No, you haven't. You've insisted that Catholics teach earning their way to salvation through works. The comment was not meant to address your personal works, but instead to address disdain for the works of others.

Jesus often used the word "faith" in the sense of "confidence". Faith will move mountains if you have the confidence that you can move mountains - confidence and a shovel.Noah had faith in God but he still had to build his own ark. His salvation depended on his deeds.

I am not a liar. Catholicism, as testified by everything I have ever read or heard, is a method of salvation by works and not faith alone. Faith plus works if you want, but that's the same thing as salvation by works. This is standard Protestant teaching, and you have no cause to call me or any Protestant or ex-Catholic a liar for affirming this teaching.Here's a short list of the anathemas of Trent against the doctrines of the Reformation. The actual list of anathemas is very long.

Did you actually read that page, Faith ? I know it's too much to expect you to actually check it or even read the quoted text in context.Do you really disagree with all the cited text from the anathema ?

I'm familiar with the lists of Trent so no I didn't read this particular page. Is there something in particular you think I wouldn't object to?